Can somebody explain to me the reason why there is fighting in eastern Ukraine?

Mar 2014
1,877
Lithuania
#11
The Russian media was pretty certain there was a concerted action by Western politicians to move Ukraine in the Western alliance
the Donbass situation started from local grievance which Poroshenko painted as a russian aggression ,
thus making a bad situation worse
at the time the footage was showing women protesting against Ukrainian soldiers ,
meanwhile the Azov battalion was proudly sporting the Wolfangel badge of the Das Reich division
Bandera , a rather sulfurous nationalist was praised as a hero for murdering poles ,Russians ,Ukrainians and Jews
the least which can be say is that he was not the discriminating type

local Donbass insurgents were fat old men and young guys wearing sneakers and lounging in a way which would have driven any sergeant to fury
their armament was pathetic , even saw some equipped with Pph41 , it's a wonder if they had ammunition for this antique

one year later things had changed , there were more military grade personal weaponry , they had military camouflage
artillery started to appear
it seems to me the situation was an escalation from locals not happy to international conflict
I was teenager in the 90-ties in Lithuania. I remember what Russian media was speaking about Lithuania and participated in a lot of events myself. So, I know 100% that they were lying every day, they were saying such outrageous lies that it was hard to believe. Brave Russian soldiers under sniper fire from all around, Lithuanians using women and children ans shields etc. So, sorry, when Russian state media says something about military coups with their involvement my initial idea they are lying for sure. I need 120% proof from independent source, even then I will suspect that it might be some kind of plant. So, my first thought that no one protested against Ukrainian soldiers, second protesters were Russian agents, third maybe they were locals paid to protest against Ukrainian soldiers.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,092
#12
Yeah... Putin also publicly assured the world there were NO Russian soldiers in Crimea. Until... duh!... there was, and he was happily handing out medals to them for a job well done.

Anyone is free to trust the Russian government, Russian state media, whatever. WHY they would chose to do so, considering its track record, is another matter.
 
Likes: Gvelion

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,103
Sydney
#13
I'm talking of Reuters , Kiv post , vice news and Voice of America
the stars and stripes also had some good pieces of info
even if the media lie , you can check out the pictures of the guys equipment , the crowd in the background
and fill the blanks
the Russians are hardly the only ones to tell fibs , in fact it must at all time be taken as the norm
 
Jul 2016
1,110
Dengie Peninsula
#14
For my sins, I went to Donetsk, to watch football , twice. There was a beautiful stadium apparently built by a Russian oligarch who had become the owner, following an unfortunate bombing attack under the Director's box! You could buy a Pizza and a beer for under 6 Euros.
The Stadium is now in bits, nothing to do with the football supporters!
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,317
South of the barcodes
#15
I have a general understanding of the earlier situation with Crimea, but the situation in Ukraine is more confusing to me. As far as I'm aware it's not a direct conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but instead some groups that are separatists that want to join Russia? And I assume that Russia is encouraging and aiding these separatists?

Am I sort of on-the-ball here, or am I completely wrong? I'm not intent on starting a debate over who is in the right or wrong here, I just want a general understanding of why the conflict started, and what exactly it's about, and who is involved.
Ukraine doesnt have a unified culture. the east tends to follow Russia, the west is more culturally affiliated to europe. Its been made worse since the Germans took over part of the country in WW1, then the Communists get the blame for the holodomor.

Once the nazis invaded the west allied with them, the east remained allied to moscow.

After the war Ukraine was shifted west, taking over parts of Poland who are even more anti-Russian than the native Ukrainians are, while the Russian area of Crimea was moved as an administrative region under Ukrainian control but was understood to still be Russian.

since independence the Ukrainain politicians have split evenly according to whether europe or Russia was bribing them the most until they collapsed into civil unrest. Crimea contains the base of the Russian fleet so it couldnt be allowed to fall into civil war so the Russians invoked their treaty obligations and reclaimed it.

Then everyone else got involved supporting various sides or whether they wanted to weaken the Russian fleet by removing their hoime port.

It kind of went downhill from there!
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2015
1,725
Kyiv
#17
I have a general understanding of the earlier situation with Crimea, but the situation in Ukraine is more confusing to me. As far as I'm aware it's not a direct conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but instead some groups that are separatists that want to join Russia? And I assume that Russia is encouraging and aiding these separatists?

Am I sort of on-the-ball here, or am I completely wrong? I'm not intent on starting a debate over who is in the right or wrong here, I just want a general understanding of why the conflict started, and what exactly it's about, and who is involved.
 
Jul 2017
123
Europe
#18
It's a proxy war between the West (NATO) and Russia. Russia doesn't allow NATO to penetrate into what they see as a Russian sphere of influence.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,092
#20
IF so it is a war (inofficially of course) prepared, declared and unilaterally prosecuted against Ukraine by Russia. With no actual NATO in sight.

It's a LOT of lipstick on one hell of pig of outright Russian aggression — at BEST based on a murky future, outlier, possibility of Ukraine wanting to join NATO. The only real reason it might need to of course being the risk of Russia aggression against it. Funny, that how the Russian aggression against Ukraine at a supposed prospect of Ukraine MAYBE in the future seeking alliances as a guarantee against Russian aggression has precipitated an undeclared but de-facto war between the two.

And even it true, it is a tacit Russian admission it has already lost Ukraine. Not due to anything NATO might be up to, but because Ukraine has no wish to be Russian on some kind of sense.

That IS a problem that crops up when nations are allowed independence, and start warming to the possibility of actually deciding their own future for themselves, and not have it decided from a centre somewhere else, of course.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Similar History Discussions